The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowed the scope of a federal bribery law frequently used in corruption cases against local officials. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices sided with former Indiana mayor James Snyder, who contended that the law criminalizes only quid pro quo bribery, not rewards given after an official act.

Bribery Law Doesn't Criminalize Gratuities : A Landmark Decision

In favoring Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, the Supreme Court continued its recent trend of raising the bar for prosecuting corruption. This decision resolves a circuit split regarding Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 666, which prohibits "corruptly" soliciting anything of value with the intent of being "influenced or rewarded." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that the government's interpretation of the statute would "radically upend gratuities rules and turn §666 into a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local officials."

Examples and Implications

The high court illustrated its point with a hypothetical scenario: "A county official could meticulously comply with her county's local gratuities rules — say, by declining a $200 gift card but accepting a $100 gift card from a neighbor as thanks for her diligent work on a new park — but still face up to 10 years in federal prison because she accepted a thing of value in connection with an official act."

Justice Kavanaugh further clarified, "Section 666 is a vital statute, but its focus is targeted: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials, while allowing state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."

Bribery Law Doesn't Criminalize Gratuities : Federalism and Policy Decisions

The court's opinion stressed that disrupting state and local governments' "carefully calibrated policy decisions" would "significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles." Although a gratuity offered and accepted after an official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666, Kavanaugh wrote.

Bribery Law Doesn't Criminalize Gratuities : The Snyder Case and Broader Impact

Snyder was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 21 months in prison for accepting a $13,000 payment from a garbage truck company after he had already steered city contracts its way. The Supreme Court's ruling could upend major corruption cases that were on hold in Chicago awaiting the decision, including sentencings for a former Commonwealth Edison CEO and three lobbyists convicted of a legislative bribery scheme at Illinois' Capitol, as well as the corruption trial of Illinois' former House Speaker, once the most powerful politician in the state.

Concerns Voiced During Oral Arguments

During oral arguments in April, several justices expressed concerns that the law, as written, could subject ordinary people to hefty prison sentences for routine gift-giving. They pressed the federal government to clarify the distinction between an innocuous fruit basket and a corruptly given reward.

Bribery Law Doesn't Criminalize Gratuities : Legal Representation

Snyder is represented by Lisa Schiavo Blatt, Sarah M. Harris, Aaron Z. Roper, and Kari M. Lorentson of Williams & Connolly LLP, and Andréa E. Gambino. The government is represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Colleen Roh Sinzdak, Nicole M. Argentieri, and Kevin J. Barber of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of clear legal boundaries in bribery law and emphasizes that the Bribery Law Doesn't Criminalize Gratuities, setting a precedent for future corruption cases.